Social and Economic Effects of Spatial Distribution in Island Communities: Comparing the Isles of...

Journal of Marine and Island Cultures (2014) xxx, xxx–xxx

Journal of Marine and Island Cultures

www.sciencedirect.com

Social and economic effects of spatial distribution

in island communities: Comparing the Isles of Scilly

and Isle of Wight, UK

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 53401982.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Grydehøj),

[email protected] (P. Hayward).1 Tel.: +61 266282453.

Peer review under responsibility of Mokpo National University.

Production and hosting by Elsevier

2212-6821 ª 2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution for Marine and Island Cultures, Mokpo National Uni

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imic.2014.03.002

Please cite this article in press as: Grydehøj, A., Hayward, P. Social and economic effects of spatial distribution in island communities: Comthe Isles of Scilly and Isle of Wight, UK. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imic.2014.03.002

Adam Grydehøj a,*, Philip Hayward b,1

a Island Dynamics, Lergravsvej 53, 3. sal, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmarkb Southern Cross University, Military Road, Lismore, Australia

Received 21 January 2014; accepted 24 March 2014

KEYWORDS

Spatial distribution and

development;

Peripheral economies;

Subnational island

jurisdictions;

Archipelagos;

Isles of Scilly;

Isle of Wight

Abstract There has been increasing awareness that communities based on islands are subject to partic-

ular island-related factors (the so-called ‘island effect’). This paper sheds empirical light on how the island

effect differs in different kinds of island communities, specifically solitary islands on the one hand and

archipelagos on the other. It does so by comparing two subnational island jurisdictions (SNIJs) in

England: the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight. By analysing census statistics, we show how the spatial

distribution in the Isles of Scilly (an archipelago) and the Isle of Wight (a solitary island) is interrelated

with patterns of population and employment. Although the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight are both

tourism economies, the data indicates that, in social and economic terms, the Isles of Scilly benefits while

the Isle of Wight suffers as a result of their different patterns of spatial distribution. We conclude that an

island community’s spatial distribution has a significant influence on its societal development and that the

island effect differs among islands with different patterns of spatial distribution.ª 2014 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution for Marine and Island Cultures,

Mokpo National University.

Introduction: island spaces

Islands hold special prominence in studies of the role thatspace plays in societal development. So fundamental is ‘the

island’ to our understanding of societal relationships that wecreate symbolic and metaphorical islands where no physicalislands exist. The popular consciousness even tends to reflectthis symbolic sense of ‘insularity’, ‘isolation’, and ‘peripherali-

ty’ back upon physical islands, despite ample evidence thatactual island communities are usually thoroughly integratedinto the outside world (Eriksen, 1993; Christensen and

Mertz, 2010). The precise manner in which the attribute ofislandness affects islands – the so-called ‘island effect’ – is verymuch under debate (Leimgruber, 2013).

Nevertheless, as the research field of island studies hasshown, island communities possess a range of general charac-teristics resulting from their spatial distinctiveness and bound-

edness. To say that insularity, isolation, and peripherality are

versity.

paring

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22126821



2 A. Grydehøj, P. Hayward

relative (Biagini and Hoyle, 1999) is not to say they areillusory. Even within the geographical category of ‘islands’,however, differing spatial factors are significant. This is true

not only in the obvious sense that some islands are very large(for instance, Greenland and Madagascar) while others arevery small. It is also true in that some ‘island communities’

are, in fact, located on an archipelago (i.e. made up of popula-tions living on multiple islands) while others are located on asolitary island.

This diversity of islands results in a diversity of island waysof life. For instance, tourism planning and practice tend totake place very differently in strongly archipelagic communi-ties than on solitary islands or in archipelagos that are

overwhelmingly dominated by one of their constituent islands(Baldacchino and Ferreira, 2013). Similarly, the isolation ofisland communities – in the sense of their distance from other

communities – is not only highly variable but also multifaceted(Spilanis et al., 2012). Physical archipelagos are not alwaysconceived of as archipelagos (Suwa, 2012), and solitary islands

are not always thought of as islands (Bo _zetka, 2013).These findings are being considered in light of island

studies’ increasing theoretical sophistication. Within island

studies, the emerging explication that islands tend to be inti-mately related with one another and with various mainlands(Stratford, 2013) represents a reconfirmation – rather than adenial – that islandness matters. Many islands – such as Malta

and Male – are arguably simultaneously highly urbanised,highly isolated, and highly interconnected with the surround-ing world. This has tended to complicate discussion of how

the island effect – whatever it may be – might relate to oft-cited‘active ingredients of islandness’ such as insularity, isolation,and peripherality. Pete Hay (2013: 12) has nevertheless argued

that:

The current ‘party line’ within island studies is to emphasizeconnectivity as the antonym of a bounded sensibility and inthe process the ocean is lost, reduced to one of two inade-quate and opposed stereotypes: hard barrier, or highway

to somewhere else.

Hay’s phenomenological remedy is to focus on ‘‘thebounded sensibility of island engagement’’ (Hay, 2013: 227),to look at psychologies of islandness. This is a welcome per-

spective inasmuch as its focus on identity construction onislands permits examination of an area that, as Hay (2013:214) notes, makes life on islands ‘‘qualitatively distinct.’’ In

other words, considering things from the islanders’ point ofview has the advantage of turning such island attributes asinsularity, isolation, and peripherality into cultural andemotional truths rather than forcing us to regard them as

geographic relativities that require nuancing in the form of dis-cussions of island-mainland interaction.

In recent years, then, the field has produced a rich literature

of theoretical correctives to itself. It has, however, been ratherpoorer at implementing these correctives in studies of actualislands. Instead, theories of the island effect have remained

marooned largely in the realm of anecdote even as islandstudies researchers continue producing excellent comparativestudies of actual islands. Exceptions do exist, and some

authors have indeed produced research that contributes bothto a specific and a general understanding of islands: On thequantitative side of the research spectrum, Pons and Rullan(2013) have shown that island and coastal urbanisation is

Please cite this article in press as: Grydehøj, A., Hayward, P. Social and ecothe Isles of Scilly and Isle of Wight, UK. Journal of Marine and Island C

associated with complex spatial factors, and on the qualitativeside, Pugh (2013: 10) has engaged with the concept of thearchipelago by calling for a ‘denaturalisation’ of space, ‘‘so

that space is more than the mere backcloth for political or eth-ical debate.’’

There remains, however, a further need for grounding con-

cepts from island studies theory in the real world. Withoutsuch a grounding, any examination of the island effect will nec-essarily be superficial.

In the present article, we seek to fill a particular gap in thisregard by shedding empirical light on the distinction betweendifferent kinds of islands (specifically between solitary islandsand archipelagos), a distinction that sometimes risks being

overlooked in debates concerning ‘the island’ in abstract. Wedo so through a comparison of two subnational island jurisdic-tions (hereafter, SNIJs) in England: 1) a relatively large soli-

tary island (Isle of Wight) in close vicinity to a majorpopulation centre and 2) a small archipelago (Isles of Scilly)that is relatively distant from any major population centre.

By comparing these two SNIJs, with reference to other Euro-pean island communities, we can consider how the island effectdiffers on solitary islands and archipelagos. We will argue not

that one type of island is more island-like or insular thananother but, rather, that the different kinds of islands resultin different kinds of island effects. Although other areas areworthy of research as well, we focus here on how patterns of

island spatial distribution relate to patterns of employmentand mobility.

Methodology

In this article, we consider the association between spatial dis-tribution (both within an SNIJ and between an SNIJ and

neighbouring landmasses) and some of the factors that areoften noted as active ingredients of the island effect, namelyinsularity, isolation, and peripherality. This association will

be analysed primarily through a comparison of various quan-titative measures of social and economic health and robustnessfrom the Isle of Wight (hereafter, IOW) and the Isles of Scilly

(hereafter, Scilly). The data, presented in Section 5 below, hasbeen considered with reference to individual islands and islanddistricts within IOW and Scilly as well as to England as awhole. The types of data presented concern:

� Table 1. Age of population.� Table 2. Distance travelled to work.

� Table 3. Method of travel to work.� Table 4. Types of employment (percentage unemployed,full-time, part-time, etc.).

� Table 5. Level of education of population.

Key to our approach is an understanding that these types ofdata represent only indirect measures of social and economic

health and robustness inasmuch as there can be no ‘ideal’figures when regarded in isolation. For instance, the percent-age of a population within the 20–29 year age cohort is of very

different societal significance for an isolated small island com-munity than it is for an urban community contiguous withother urban communities. Such, at any rate, is the anecdotal,

common sense proposition that one would derive from theisland studies theory discussed above. However, by looking

nomic effects of spatial distribution in island communities: Comparingultures (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imic.2014.03.002


Table 1 Population statistics, derived from 2011 Census of England and Wales (Office for National Statistics). Figures in italics

designate regional totals while figures in bold designate the highest figure in a category.

Total pop. 0–4 yr.

(%)

5–9 yr.

(%)

10–15 yr.

(%)

16–19 yr.

(%)

20–29 yr.

(%)

30–44 yr.

(%)

45–64 yr.

(%)

65–74 yr.

(%)

75 + yr.

(%)

Mean age

England 53,012,456 6.3 5.6 7.0 5.1 13.7 20.6 25.4 8.6 7.8 39.3

Scilly total 2,203 4.8 4.8 6.2 1.5 11.1 19.4 29.2 12.3 10.7 44.7

St Mary’s 1723 4.2 4.7 6.7 1.6 9.2 18.4 30.2 13.1 11.8

Tresco 175 5.1 5.1 4.0 2.3 25.7 28.6 21.1 3.4 4.6

St Martin’s 136 6.6 4.4 4.4 0.7 17.6 19.9 25.7 11.0 9.6

Bryher/St Agnes 169 8.3 5.3 4.1 1.2 11.2 19.5 30.2 14.2 5.9

IoW total 138,265 4.6 4.8 7.1 4.6 9.7 16.8 28.6 12.4 11.5 44.4

Ryde 31,516 5.0 5.1 7.2 4.9 10.2 17.5 27.8 11.7 10.7

East Wight 28,309 4.2 4.3 7.0 4.8 9.1 14.7 28.9 13.4 13.7

Newport 25,496 5.4 5.3 7.3 4.9 13.5 20.0 26.1 9.4 8.2

Cowes 22,499 5.5 5.2 7.2 4.6 9.8 19.0 27.2 11.4 10.1

South Wight 16,579 3.6 4.9 6.9 4.4 7.2 14.5 32.9 14.5 12.0

Back of Wight 13,866 3.3 4.0 6.1 3.7 6.5 12.5 31.5 16.3 16.1

Table 2 Distance travelled to work, derived from 2001 Census of England and Wales (Office for National Statistics). Figures in italics

designate regional totals while figures in bold designate the highest figure in a category.

All Workers

Sampled

Work from

Home (%)

<2 km

(%)

2–<5 km

(%)

5–<10 km

(%)

10–<30 km

(%)

>30 km

(%)

England 22,441,497 9.2 20.0 21.1 18.2 20.5 7.5

Scilly total 1269 23.2 61.4 3.5 1.2 0.0 5.0

St Mary’s 917 21.6 61.7 3.9 0.7 0.0 5.4

Tresco 132 9.8 78.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 8.4

St Martin’s 105 33.3 60.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0

Bryher/St

Agnes

110 44.5 42.7 5.5 2.7 0.0 7.8

IoW total 54,483 10.6 29.2 12.4 18.8 19.1 4.4

Ryde 12,499 9.4 25.9 11.2 27.3 16.1 4.4

East Wight 10,585 12.9 26.8 12.0 12.0 25.6 5.2

Newport 10,199 7.3 46.0 14.1 14.6 10.5 2.9

Cowes* 6279 9.6 31.2 15.4 21.9 13.1 3.9

South Wight 6983 13.7 15.3 13.0 19.7 24.7 5.1

Back of

Wight**3379 17.0 16.0 8.8 17.1 28.5 5.8

Note: Due to missing data, these figures represent very rough approximations. The figures do not include workers with no fixed workplace.* Excluding East Cowes Parish.** Excluding Freshwater Parish.

Table 3 Method of travel to work for residents below the age of 75, derived from 2011 Census of England and Wales (Office for

National Statistics). Figures in italics designate regional totals while figures in bold designate the highest figure in a category.

Private

car/van (%)

Motorcycle/moped/quad

bike (%)

Public transport*

(Land) (%)

Work from

home (%)

Walk

(%)

Bicycle

(%)

Other

(%)

Not in

employment (%)

England 37.7 0.5 11.2 6.9 6.3 1.8 0.3 35.3

Scilly total 17.6 2.1 0.7 26.7 20.8 11.5 2.5 19.2

IoW total 34.9 1.0 3.5 7.4 9.5 1.8 1.2 40.6

* Passengers in taxis are listed under ‘Public Transport’.

Social and economic effects of spatial distribution in island communities: Comparing the Isles of Scilly and Isle of Wight, UK3

at population data alongside other data as we do here, we arecapable of moving beyond anecdote and common sense and

seeing how and how the age breakdown of an island’s popula-tion might be significant.

Thus, generally speaking, our analysis of this data leads usto draw conclusions concerning how spatial factors influence


distribution of population, employment, and mobility. Bycomparing the situations in two quite spatially distinct island

communities, we are able to evaluate the extent to which wecan speak of an island effect per se as opposed to a varietyof potential island effects conditioned by the varying spatialdistributions of actual islands.



Table 5 Highest Level of Educational Qualification, derived

from 2011 Census of England and Wales (Office for National

Statistics). Figures in italics designate regional totals while

figures in bold designate the highest figure in a category.

Age 16+ No Academic

Qualifications (%)

University

Degree (%)

England 42,989,620 22.5 27.4

Scilly total 1,857 14.2 33.0

St Mary’s 1,453 16.0 32.1

Tresco 150 4.7 34.7

St Martin’s 115 8.7 34.8

Bryher/St Agnes 139 10.1 38.8

IoW total 115,589 24.3 22.6

Ryde 26,083 23.0 23.0

East Wight 23,946 28.1 19.4

Newport 20,907 24.7 19.2

Cowes 18,471 21.3 26.5

South Wight 14,169 23.7 24.3

Back of Wight 12,013 19.9 26.3

Table 4 Employment statistics for economically active residents and retirees below the age of 75, derived from 2011 Census of

England and Wales (Office for National Statistics). Figures in italics designate regional totals while figures in bold designate the highest

figure in a category.

Aged 16–74 Part-time

employed (%)

Full-time

employed (%)

Self-employed

(%)

Working + 49 h

per week (%)

Unem-ployed

(%)

Retired

(%)

England 38,881,374 13.7 38.6 9.8 8.6 4.4 13.7

Scilly total 1,622 13.6 40.3 26.7 15.0 1.1 12.9

St Mary’s 1,249 14.5 38.1 25.8 12.7 1.2 15.0

Tresco 142 7.7 83.1 5.6 19.0 0.7 1.4

St Martin’s 102 10.8 27.5 39.2 21.6 1.0 9.8

Bryher/St Agnes 129 12.4 24.0 48.9 28.7 0.8 7.8

IoW Total 99,747 15.8 30.4 11.6 6.5 4.4 20.5

Ryde 22,702 15.9 31.2 10.9 6.1 5.3 19.7

East Wight 20,065 15.4 27.9 12.4 11.7 5.2 22.4

Newport 18,815 16.8 33.1 8.1 5.0 4.2 14.6

Cowes 16,196 15.7 35.8 11.0 6.7 3.3 19.0

South Wight 12,184 14.8 26.4 15.8 7.9 3.8 24.0

Back of Wight 9,785 15.7 24.7 14.2 6.9 3.2 28.3


The data used in this article has been derived from the datacollected by the Office of National Statistics for the 2001 and

2011 Census of England and Wales. The significant disparityin land area and population size between Scilly and IOWnecessitated, for the sake of comparison, the creation of newdata sets on the basis of the census data. The tables below thus

present statistics on a variety of spatial and jurisdictionalscales: They compare data for England as a whole, Scilly asa whole, and IOW as a whole as well as districts within Scilly

and IOW. In the case of Scilly, these districts are deriveddirectly from the census statistics, taking the form of the archi-pelago’s five inhabited islands (the main island of St Mary’s

and the four ‘off islands’ of Tresco, St Martin’s, Bryher, andSt Agnes), which the census treat as electoral wards, with Bry-her and St Agnes being combined into a single ward.

In the case of IOW, these districts are created by groupingthe island’s various parishes on the basis of location, major set-tlements, and local spatial perceptions. These six districts andtheir constituent parishes are:


� Ryde: Ryde (Parish), Havenstreet and Ashey, Nettlestone

and Seaview, Fishbourne, Wootton Bridge.� East Wight: Sandown, Bembridge, St Helens, Lake, Brad-ing, Shanklin.

� Newport: Newport (Parish).� Cowes: Gurnard, Cowes (Parish), Whippingham, EastCowes, Northwood.

� South Wight: Newchurch, Chillerton and Gatcombe,Chale, Godshill, Niton and Whitwell, Rookley, Ventnor,Wroxall, Arreton.� Back of Wight (Southwest Wight): Totland, Freshwater,

Yarmouth, Brighstone, Calbourne, Shorwell, and Shalfleet.

Unlike the ‘natural’ district boundaries in Scilly, various

arguments could be forwarded for rearrangements amongthe created IOW districts, and such rearrangements could sig-nificantly alter the results. Because the wards in Scilly and the

parishes on IOW are derived directly from the Office ofNational Statistics’ census data, however, the figures givenbelow are capable of further testing as new data becomes avail-

able. Indeed, future researchers could easily alter the composi-tions of the various IOW districts. The data used in this articlewas retrieved from the Office of National Statistics website(www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk) in March 2013, with

the exception of the data in Table 3, which was retrieved inJuly 2013.

The small size of the districts under consideration (particu-

larly those in Scilly) means that factors involving a small num-ber of individuals can greatly affect outcomes in individualcategories. This does not make the data incorrect (in fact,

Scilly’s small size ensured exemplary census coverage), but itmakes caution necessary when extrapolating conclusions fromthe data. Furthermore, data is at times lacking due to the

Office of National Statistics’ efforts to ensure confidentialityin small communities.

Islands of England

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island(hereafter, the UK) is an archipelagic state spatially dominatedby its main island (Great Britain). In addition to the portion of


http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk


Fig. 1 Location of the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight

relative to Great Britain and Ireland. (Source: adapted from

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALocation_Sealand.

PNG)


its territory located on the northeast corner of the island of Ire-land, the UK includes various smaller islands around itscoasts. Further complicating this territorial picture, the Chan-

nel Islands (southeast of Great Britain) and the Isle of Man (inthe Irish Sea) are dependencies of the British Crown ratherthan constitutional components of the UK.

The Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight are located off thesouthwest and the south coast of England respectively (seeFig. 1).

These two SNIJs are exceptional within the UK for a num-ber of reasons. Scilly is the smallest administrative area in all ofthe UK in terms of population (2,203 residents) and the secondsmallest in terms of land area (16 km2). In contrast, IOW has

the largest population (138,265) of any UK parliamentary con-stituency and is the largest island in England in terms of landarea (385 km2). Although this makes IOW the fourth most

populous island in the British Isles (after Great Britain, Ire-land, and Portsea Island), it is only the 12th largest in termsof land area. In addition, whereas Scilly is located 45 km from

a peripheral corner of Great Britain, IOW is separated frompopulous Portsmouth only by the narrow Solent Channel.

With the exception of the city of Portsmouth on Portsea

Island, Scilly and IOW are the only of England’s 85 subnation-al jurisdictions (counties, the Greater London administrativearea, and the Scilly sui generis unitary authority) to be whollyor primarily insular.

Tourism economies

Before beginning our analysis, we will briefly place Scilly and

IOW in an economic-historical context.Unlike Scotland’s archipelagic SNIJs (Western Isles, Ork-

ney, and Shetland), Scilly and IOW have not developed repu-

tations for ruggedness and isolation but are instead oftenperceived as playgrounds for the wealthy and sites for seasidetourism in somewhat the same manner as are the British crown

dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey, and Jersey). This is theresult of historical circumstance in terms of the developmentof tourism in these islands as well as of a more recent tendency

for them to be marketed in very similar ways (Johnson, 2012).IOW became a site for large-scale tourism at an early date,

enjoying royal patronage first through King George IV’sinvolvement in the Royal Yacht Club (later, Royal Yacht

Squadron), resulting in the establishment of an annual sailingregatta in 1826. The regatta, which continues to this day,became a regular attraction for the British aristocracy. Queen

Victoria had a house built on the island in the 1840s andremained a frequent visitor until her death on IOW in 1901.This royal attachment seems to have increased the island’s

popular appeal, prompting entertainment and transport infra-structure improvements by the mid-1850s (Grydehøj &Hayward, 2011).

For its part, Scilly was visited by intrepid travellers during

the Victorian period (for instance, Whitfield, 1852). The intro-duction of rail services from London to Penzance in Cornwallin 1867 delivered travellers to a port from which they could

gain passage to Hugh Town on the island of St Mary’s, whichis still Scilly’s largest settlement. In 1920, the Isles of ScillySteamship Company began a regular passenger and cargo ser-

vice between Penzance and St Mary’s, a service that remainsScilly’s lifeline to the mainland today. In the mid-1930s, plane


flights to St Mary’s began operating out of St Just (near Land’sEnd, Cornwall) before being replaced by Europe’s first regular

helicopter route in 1964 (Lo Bao and Hutchinson, 2002). Reg-ular air services now connect the islands to a range of towns inCornwall and southern England.

The British media has played a major role in attractingtourists to Scilly, most significantly in the 1960s, when UKPrime Minister Harold Wilson had a predilection for going

on holiday to Scilly and holding press conferences on theislands. More recently, the BBC2 documentary TV series AnIsland Parish (2007) and an accompanying book (Farrell,2008) alerted many mainlanders to the islands’ beauty.

Although both Scilly and IOW are today widely regardedas desirable places to visit and live, they also feature local dis-courses of impoverishment. The two SNIJs are highly depen-

dent on domestic tourism. In 2005, IOW’s tourism industrywas estimated as generating £360 million in direct expenditure,£25 million in yachting income, and £150 million through the

multiplier effect, supporting over 20% of the island’s jobs (Isleof Wight Council, 2005, 3). Tourism-related income accountsfor at least 70% of Scilly’s economy (Council of the Isles ofScilly, 2012, 19). Despite similarities in the tourism experiences

on offer and the ways in which these are marketed (naturalheritage, warm weather, beaches, flowers, etc.), the two SNIJsattract somewhat different markets. IOW features much more

family tourism, focused on the beach per se and seaside amuse-ments and attractions. Nevertheless, both SNIJs depend signif-icantly on older tourists, with over 80% of visitors to Scilly

being above the age of 45 (Council of the Isles of Scilly,2012, 21). Both SNIJs are highly seasonal destinations, thoughin Scilly, the difference between the late-summer peak season


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALocation_Sealand.PNG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALocation_Sealand.PNG


Fig. 2 Map of the Isle of Wight, showing major settlements. (Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Isle_of_Wight_Map.png)


and the shoulder season is levelling off (Council of the Isles of

Scilly, 2012, 22), perhaps partially due to a decline among theyounger demographics, the holiday planning of which is morelikely to be influenced by school and work holidays.

Analysis of spatial distributions in archipelago and solitary

island communities

As the figures in Table 1 below demonstrate, the populationsof both Scilly and IOW are considerably older than the popu-lation of England as a whole.

Although both Scilly and IOW possess economies depen-dent largely on older tourists, IOW possesses considerablymore retirees than does Scilly, as will be evident in Table 4

below. No part of Scilly possesses such concentrations of res-idents 65 years or older as do IOW’s rural districts, though thismay largely be due to the impediments to purchasing retire-ment homes outside of Hugh Town because the Duchy of

Cornwall owns most of the housing stock elsewhere in thearchipelago. We can partially associate Scilly’s exceptionallyhigh mean age with its lack of 16–19 year olds (local youths

must move to the mainland for upper secondary school). BothScilly and IOW possess high proportions of residents over theage of 65 and between 45 and 64 years old. Unlike IOW, how-

ever, Scilly also has many 20–29 and 30–44 year old residents,particularly on the off islands. Tresco is a special case due tothe structure of its economy (discussed below).

Table 1 also indicates that the shared reputation of Scillyand IOW as rural idylls is not entirely accurate. Although Scillyis resolutely rural despite its tiny size (population density of137.7 per km2), IOW’s population density of 359.1 residents

per km2 means that, like the Channel Islands, its reputationfor rurality is not fully deserved. As noted elsewhere(Grydehøj & Hayward, 2011: 195), this comes down in part

to IOW’s unusually multi-nodal settlement pattern: Whereasmost Northern European SNIJs possess one major population


centre accompanied by numerous smaller settlements, IOW has

no primary focal point for social, economic, or cultural activity.Besides the inland administrative centre of Newport, there are anumber of other significant urban clusters, such as Ryde,

Cowes, East Cowes, Shanklin, Sandown, Ventnor, and Fresh-water. This is a result of IOW’s historical development, bothin terms of the emergence of the tourism industry (which

favours coastal locations) and in terms of the variety of othereconomic activities that were traditionally – and to some extent,still are – undertaken on the island. Only the area known locally

as the ‘Back of Wight’ (the southwest corner of the island) iscomprehensively rural (see Fig. 2).

In contrast, Scilly possesses a definite population centre,namely Hugh Town, which is home to nearly half of the archi-

pelago’s total population, with the remainder of the island ofSt Mary’s accounting for a further quarter of Scilly’s totalnumber of residents. Whereas 77.2% of IOW’s population

lives outside of the island’s most-populous region (Ryde andits surroundings), just 21.8% of Scilly’s population lives onthe off islands (see Fig. 3).

The differing spatial distributions of populations in Scillyand IOW have some interesting – and at times unexpected –effects on how the SNIJs’ societies function. As shown inTable 2, IOW residents who are employed are significantly

more likely to live within 2 km of their workplaces than areresidents of England as a whole but are only marginally morelikely to live within 5 km of their workplaces. Over 43% of

them do not work in their own communities at all, with mostof these evidently travelling to other parts of the island towork. IOW’s most rural districts (South Wight and Back of

Wight) feature both the highest proportions of workersworking from home and the highest proportions of workerstravelling over 5 km to work: This reflects the high rate of

self-employment in these districts, including primary sectoragriculture and family-run tourism businesses (see Table 4below), combined with the relative lack of jobs in the second-ary and tertiary sectors, which causes residents to travel to


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Isle_of_Wight_Map.png


Fig. 3 Map of the Isles of Scilly, showing major settlements.

(Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scilly_Islands_

map.png)


work in IOW’s major towns. That said, Ryde, the island’s

most urbanised district, also features rates of travel to workbetween 5 and 10 km (a figure excluding those who commuteby ferry to the mainland) that is significantly in excess of the

national average. In other words, workers from IOW’s ruraldistricts are commuting to the island’s towns, but workersfrom the towns are likewise commuting to other sites on the

island. That said, significantly fewer individuals are commut-ing long distances (in IOW’s case, to locations on the mainlanda considerable distance from the ferry ports) than in Englandas a whole.

This stands in sharp contrast to the situation in Scilly,where distance travelled to work rates are absolutely unlikethe national averages. Due to Scilly’s distance from the

mainland, it is impossible to commute 10–30 km, yet Scilly’sproportion of workers commuting over 30 km is not signifi-cantly elevated relative to that of England. Combined with

the small numbers of IOW residents commuting long dis-tances, this reinforces the important argument by Spilaniset al. (2012, 210) that ‘accessibility’ is not measurable by dis-tance in kilometres alone when it comes to islands that are

dependent on slow and/or expensive ferries for transport.It is striking that a full 84.6% of Scilly workers hardly com-

mute at all and instead work less than 2 km from where they

live: In other words, they work on their own islands. Further-more, it is evidently not the case that the urban centre of HughTown on St Mary’s is skewing the average distance travelled

downward and that large numbers of workers from the offislands are commuting to St Mary’s.

What is intriguing when we compare the figures from Scilly

and IOW is how they compare with trends in island commut-ing elsewhere. As noted above, most European SNIJs possess asingle definite centre of population (as in Scilly). There is,furthermore, often a process of urbanisation and centralisation


underway, with the population centre drawing both residentsand commuters from the rural districts over time. This is evi-dent not only on many solitary islands but also perhaps even

more strongly in archipelagos such as Shetland in Scotland,where the more populous zone in the centre of the main islandhas gradually accrued residents (Shetland Islands Council,

2012: 10) and commuters at the expense of the peripheralislands. Such is not the case in Scilly, which has experiencedan overall decline in population over time without St Mary’s

growing relative to the off islands.In contrast, IOW has experienced more or less steady pop-

ulation growth since the start of the 1800s, but it has similarlyresisted centralisation despite processes of urbanisation, with

the island’s population growing as tourism and geographicallydispersed heavy industries emerged as dominant economicactivities. Although the inland location of Newport helps

explain why Newport has not disproportionately increased insize, it does not explain why the coastal settlements have notdone so. By comparison, the similarly seaside tourism-domi-

nated crown dependencies (Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey)have all developed definite population centres, despite theirhigh population densities.

In other words, regardless of their actual population distri-butions at this time, both centralised-yet-archipelagic Scillyand decentralised-yet-solitary island IOW have resisted trendstoward further centralisation. Not all decentralisation is the

same, however, and as Table 2 above showed, both urbanand rural IOW residents are considerably more dependenton transport for their work than are urban or rural Scilly

residents.Research elsewhere has shown that ease of and general

access to private transport in rural communities can exacerbate

social divides: As car use increases, provision of local servicestends to decrease relative to provision of services in general,with consumers driving to larger settlements for their shopping

and other needs. This further enhances the importance – andthus the frequency – of car ownership, leading to a loss of pub-lic transport provision. The result is a ‘poverty of access’ forthose who lack the resources or ability to use private transport

(Gray et al., 2006).With this mind, we can consider in Table 3 the Office of

National Statistics’ data on method of travel to work, which

uses different computations than those used for the data inTable 2.

We can perhaps see the development of a ‘poverty of access’

process on IOW, where few people use public transport rela-tive to the national average. IOW has, in fact, a decent bus sys-tem, with relatively frequent travel between the major townsand occasional travel through the rural districts, but there is

no doubt that lack of a car restricts freedom of mobility inpractice. We saw in Table 2 above that individuals in the coun-tryside and individuals in the towns are commuting to work,

but we can see in Table 3 that the shortfall in private carand public transport use is made up for by a surplus of peoplewithout employment. It is unsurprising that an SNIJ without

major rail lines and with a large number of retirees also hasfew people who use public transport and a low employmentrate. It is, however, startling that there is no correlation

between low public transport use and high car use, which isusually the case in rural English communities, even those withvery high proportions of retirees (for example, in Dorset,Somerset, and Devon) and even when measuring only method


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scilly_Islands_map.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scilly_Islands_map.png



of travel to work. In the absence of a more direct means ofmeasuring access to transport in general, the implication thusseems to be that there is an overall lack of mobility among

IOW residents. The fact that this lack of mobility is elevatedrelative to other favoured English retirement areas does notnecessarily prove that it is an effect of islandness, but it does

mean that it is not an effect of rurality alone.In Scilly, on the other hand, the small size of the individual

islands and the nature of the boats that serve as inter-island

ferries mean that car ownership in the SNIJ is very limited,and although private boat ownership is not uncommon, thishas not emerged as a dominant replacement for inter-islandtransport by ferries. In terms of methods of travel to work,

compared with all 348 subnational jurisdictions in Englandand Wales, Scilly has the highest percentage of people workingfrom home, the highest percentage of people riding small

motorised vehicles (in this case, primarily quad bikes), the sec-ond-highest percentage of walkers, the second-highest percent-age cyclists, and the highest percentage of people getting to

work by other methods (in this case, primarily by boat). Scillyalso has the lowest percentage of people not in employmentand the lowest percentage of people taking overland public

transport. In other words, the data indicates that Scilly’shighly archipelagic nature may reduce the extent to which rel-ative poverty of access plays a role in social cohesion andequality within the community.

IOW’s unemployment rate among economically active indi-viduals between the ages of 16 and 74 is at the national aver-age. Thus, whatever special problems IOW may face, there is

not a general problem of unemployment per se, and althoughrates of part-time employment are in excess of those in Eng-land as a whole, they are not remarkably so. If IOW is in eco-

nomic trouble, it is because the tourist jobs in which so manypeople are employed tend to be seasonal and poorly paid, liketourism jobs in many other locations (Zampoukos and

Ioannides, 2011), because there are many people below theretirement age who are not economically active, and becauseunlike in Scilly, there is no labour shortage to boost employeebenefits.

As the figures in Table 2 suggested, IOW’s rural districtsfeature the highest rates of self-employment on the island,but they also feature the lowest rates of full-time employment,

primarily due to their large proportions of retirees. This pat-tern is not replicated within Scilly. Scilly has the highest rateof self-employment of any subnational jurisdiction in England,

which is probably related to Scilly likewise featuring the high-est rate of individuals working more than 49 h per week (pre-sumably largely on a seasonal basis). Despite Scilly’s smallsize, its various islands possess quite distinct economic struc-

tures: For instance, in terms of tourism accommodation busi-nesses, St Mary’s features a mix of small and larger businessesthat could be compared with that of a town on IOW; Tresco is

operated as a monolithic business enterprise by the island’sleaseholder; Bryher combines a luxury hotel resort, B&Bs,camping, and self-catering cottages; and St Agnes and (follow-

ing a hotel closure) St Martin’s feature only B&Bs, camping,and self-catering. We can thus see exceptional rates of full-timeemployment on Tresco and self-employment on St Agnes/Bry-

her and St Martin’s. Combining low unemployment rates, fewchildren, and relatively low rates of retirees under the age of75, Scilly possesses an extremely high proportion of economi-cally active individuals.


Despite Scilly’s isolation and the fact that nearly all of itsyoung residents leave the archipelago to continue their studies,the SNIJ has an extremely well-educated population. St

Mary’s, the least educated of Scilly’s islands, has a 10% higherrate of residents with university degrees than does IOW as awhole. In contrast, even the best-educated district on IOW is

below the national average. This is surprising given the largenumber of immigrant retirees from elsewhere in the UK livingin rural IOW, and it points either to IOW attracting a variety

of retirees who have lower educational attainments or to theindigenous population of rural IOW possessing sufficientlylow levels of education to drag down the figures for these dis-tricts regardless of the large numbers of retirees. Another note-

worthy element here is the East Wight district, which includesthe seaside tourism towns of Sandown and Shanklin as well asSt Helens and Bembridge (two villages that are home to large

numbers of relatively wealthy retirees) yet which is by far theleast-educated district on the island and has a relatively highunemployment rate (see Table 4).

The figures above show that, despite a similar dependenceon seaside tourism, Scilly and IOW have developed very differ-ent societal structures. Both SNIJs feature internal geographic

differences, but Scilly has more positive social and economicindicators than IOW in nearly every respect, both on the levelof the SNIJ as a whole and on the level of individual districts(whether urban or rural).

Discussion of the effect of archipelago status

As Baldacchino (2008) has noted, the factors involved in inter-

island and intra-island population distribution are complex.Table 2 above suggests that most residents of Scilly’s offislands are relatively infrequent visitors to St Mary’s. Many

visit Hugh Town to do their shopping at the Co-op, but eventhis (Scilly’s only supermarket) is a smaller store than are mostsupermarkets in other European small island communities,

particularly those that, like Scilly, rely on tourism. In contrast,the local shops and grocers on Scilly’s off islands are simplyphenomenal by usual UK island village standards. From the

upmarket luxury goods-focused Tresco Stores, to the localproduce-focused St Agnes Post Office Stores, to the spaciousBryher Shop, Scilly’s off islanders possess exceptional retailopportunities considering the size of their islands’ populations

relative to that of St Mary’s.The fact that Scilly is an archipelago is, however, only part

of the story. Not all archipelagos cope with their archipelago

status in the same way. From a UK perspective, it is strikingthat Scilly lacks a sophisticated system of inter-island ferriescomparable to those in place in the Scottish archipelagos.

Outside of the tourist season, regularly scheduled transport –supplied by private providers – between the islands is relativelyinfrequent. Although it is possible for individuals to regularlycommute to work between islands, the infrastructure is not in

place to make this an attractive option. In contrast, commut-ing between islands is much more common in the Scot-tish SNIJs of Orkney and Shetland, where many peripheral

island residents commute to the archipelagos’ major towns(Grydehøj, 2008). In this sense, Scilly residents appear to bedisadvantaged relative to IOW residents inasmuch as the latter

have little difficulty travelling elsewhere overland within theSNIJ for work, leisure, and shopping.




Given the enhanced mobility and greater industrial diver-sity within IOW relative to Scilly, we would expect IOW’seconomy to possess better opportunities for self-correction

and to be less prone to downturns affecting any one districtor economic sector. While this is probably true, the data inTables 4 and 5 indicates that even if both Scilly and IOW

are largely dependent on tourism and possess discourses ofimpoverishment, the archipelago is significantly better off thanis the solitary island in terms of educational qualifications and

employment. This is despite IOW possessing a greater percent-age of retirees (i.e. individuals who contribute to demand with-out depressing terms of employment by expanding the labourmarket).

The Council of the Isles of Scilly has argued that the SNIJ’swealth is illusory and, in fact, that the islands are the poorestpart of the UK given that local wages are far below the

national average while commodity and housing prices are con-siderably above the national average (Dugan, 2008). We donot wish to underplay the challenges facing the Council, yet

its analysis skirts around some important issues. The Councilneglects the existence of a considerable informal economy(involving exchange of services, payment in kind, and unregis-

tered payments) (cf. Davila, 2003; Baldacchino, 2010) as wellas the fact that accommodation is provided for many of theislands’ tourism workers.

Furthermore, the high average house price is misleading

inasmuch as the SNIJ’s unusual land ownership structure, withtheDuchy of Cornwall owningmost properties outside of HughTown, means that, relative to figures elsewhere, a far greater

proportion of Scilly residents rent their accommodation ratherthan own it outright (Council of the Isles of Scilly, 2012: 17).Lack of housing is a real problem in Scilly, with many young

people in particular worrying that they will be forced to leavethe archipelago as a result. However, such complaints surfacenot only in Hugh Town, where much of the privately owned

housing stock and hence – as indicated in Tables 3 and 4 above– many of the archipelago’s immigrant retirees are located butalso on islands such as St Agnes, where there is a lack of housingbecause houses are scarce, not because many houses are being

occupied by retirees as the Council seems to suggest. Scilly thusfaces different – and perhaps less socially detrimental – prob-lems involving lack of housing than do other island communi-

ties that attract wealthy immigrants and retirees, such as theIsle of Man (Canavan, 2011) and IOW. Island status itself exac-erbates the seriousness of lack of housing in coastal tourism

communities inasmuch as it reduces the availability of inlandareas into which indigenous residents can move when pushedaway from the coast by rising prices. We can furthermore notethat, when confronted with legal, ownership, and environmen-

tal obstacles, housing is not a policy area conducive to easyanswers (Falleth and Hofstad, 2008).

Keenly aware of its status as an archipelagic SNIJ, the

Council of Isles of Scilly (2012) is seeking funding to improveits transport system by highlighting how poorly equippedScilly is relative to the Scottish archipelagos. Both travel to

and from the British mainland (by plane or ferry) and betweenthe various islands (by small boat) is unpredictable, expensive,and infrequent, particularly outside of the tourist season.

Return fares to and from the mainland range between £85and £190 (Council of the Isles of Scilly, 2012: 53).

The challenges presented by Scilly’s lack of housing andpoor transport system are undoubtedly serious. Compared,


however, with the situation on IOW, we can see a number ofpotential advantages as well. The lack of housing for sale onthe open market not only limits the ability of Scilly residents

to purchase homes; it also limits the potential influx of retirees.Scilly residents generally feel that the Duchy of Cornwall’sproperty ownership and stewardship over the islands prevents

locals from being priced out of the substantial rental housingmarket since the Duchy often – though not always – opts torent to individuals already living in Scilly. The high price of

transport to and from the mainland and the peripheral loca-tion (relative to IOW’s situation) of the mainland towns towhich this transport is linked also contributes to Scilly hostingsignificantly wealthier tourists, who stay on the islands longer

and spend more money per day during their visits.Furthermore, although the Council of the Isles of Scilly

(2012: 15) may be concerned that ‘‘32% of islands [sic] busi-

nesses work from home as a result of insufficient workspace’’and that ‘‘businesses choose location based on availability ofworkspace not what’s best for business,’’ this combination of

lack of space and poor inter-island transport means that Scillyhas resisted further movement of employment and servicesfrom the off islands to Hugh Town and that the off islands

have retained active business communities (tourist accommo-dation, retail, agriculture, and small-scale production). Thisis in marked contrast to many other archipelagic SNIJs, inwhich the flow of power to the centre can sometimes appear

irresistible, with some peripheral islands largely becomingcommuter communities or risking outright depopulation.

Conclusions

Baldacchino and Bertram (2009: 142) note in relation to eco-nomic vulnerability in small states that:

Many of the statistical measures paraded before interna-

tional agencies as signs of vulnerability and special needsare in fact the outcomes of purposive and rational strategicbehaviour [. . .]. Successful small countries actively increase

their trade ratios, narrow their economic diversification,increase their reliance on financial transfers from largermetropolitan powers, explore alternatives to industrializa-tion, and embark on high-volatility activities while making

due provision to retain windfall gains to offset losses.Statistical indices made up of weighted averages of theseindicators do not serve as proof of vulnerability; rather,

they presume it.

The same is true for Scilly: Precisely because the SNIJ’s eco-nomic and social structure differs radically from that of themajority of the UK, its various indicators of social and eco-

nomic robustness diverge significantly from the UK average.For instance, if the private car and public transport use statis-tics in Table 3 above were subjected to a mainland-centredanalysis, it would appear that Scilly residents suffered from

an astonishing poverty of access in terms of their basic needsand employment. However, a careful look at how these figuresrelate to other measures indicates that this is not the case and

that, instead, mobility in Scilly simply takes on an island func-tion instead of the function that it does in rural mainlandcommunities.

Or rather, mobility in Scilly takes on a particular type ofisland function, for as we have also seen, there are different




patterns of mobility on IOW, an SNIJ with clear externalboundaries to movement (the sea) but minimal internal bound-aries. On IOW, there are indications that, in the absence of

mass transit, lack of private transport is correlated with lackof employment. Although poverty of access is a rural issuemore than it is an island issue per se, the precise manner in

which it and other signs of social and economic weakness (highage, long commutes, and low education) play out on IOW arespecifically affected by IOW’s island status. It is simply that

the island effect on this relatively large solitary island is differ-ent than the island effect in the small archipelago.

With reference to Aegean islands, Spilanis et al. (2012: 212)argue:

Geographical distance only partially determines accessibil-

ity for small islands. The choice of transport is anyway lim-ited to public transport at determined frequencies withmuch higher transport time (and cost). Moreover, different

services are located at different destinations. Combinedwith the inability to return overnight from many of thesedestinations, many days may be required to go and return

from a trip. The geography for these residents of smallerislands seems therefore very different from that of a ‘con-ventional’ map; space contracts or subtracts according tothese factors.

Insularity, isolation, and peripherality are often discussed

as negative factors in the social and cultural development ofisland communities, but echoing the conclusions of theabove authors, the comparison between Scilly and IOW

shows that such factors produce no simple chain ofconsequences.

In our globalised world, as localities compete and trade

with distant destinations as well as near neighbours, a certainmeasure of insularity could be advantageous. IOW – depen-dent on ferry services for access to large towns and subjectto spatial limitations in terms of the educational, industrial,

and residential potential it can offer – is subject to a particularset of island disadvantages. However, the relative ease of trans-port to and from and within the island means that IOW misses

out on some of the protective attributes that Scilly hasacquired as a result of its status as a remote archipelago––and arguably, as a relatively underfunded remote archipelago

with a poor transport system: It may not be such a bad thingif tourists are forced to spend the night instead of enabled tomake the kind of daytrip visits that add little to the local

economy yet place strain on the local infrastructure. Similarly,insularity makes a positive impact when locals are forced toshop in the community instead of enabled to do their shoppingelsewhere (cf. Grydehøj, 2008: 68; Baldacchino and Ferreira,

2013).It could thus be argued that Scilly’s lack of financial

resources to implement infrastructure policies has paradoxi-

cally led to social and economic benefits for individual islandcommunities in the archipelago, even if it has also had negativeimpacts. This is the case even if one can conceive of alternative

paths to community wellbeing, along the lines of the farbetter-funded – and as a result, more comprehensively planned– development in some of the Scottish SNIJs (Grydehøj, 2012,

2013). Improving mobility through transport infrastructure isjust one potential path toward strengthening communities(cf. Hansen, 2013), and the impact of spatial distributioncannot be separated from economic realities: The tiny public


sector in Scilly (large though it may be relative to the SNIJ’spopulation) has a limited range of policy options from whichto choose compared with the wealthier and/or better centrally

funded Scottish SNIJs.Just as islandness can affect communities in different ways,

different types of islands encourage different types of commu-

nities. Though small in spatial extent, Scilly is exceptionallyconditioned by its archipelago status, which has helpedproduce socially and economically strong local communities

relative to those on IOW. Local economic development isinfluenced not only by population distribution and a generali-sable rurality but also by the spatial characteristics that havehistorically affected settlement and industry patterns and

continue to do so. IOW is differently – but no less – spatiallyconditioned. There is, however, no direct determinisminvolved, for though spatial distribution may be implicated

in development patterns, its precise effects are themselvesdependent on issues such as the human and economicresources that a community has at its disposal.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for theircomments and assistance in improving this article through its

various drafts.

References

Baldacchino, G., 2008. Population dynamics from peripheral regions:

a North Atlantic perspective. Eur. J. Spatial Dev. 27, 1–19

(Retrieved from: http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refer-

eed%20articles/refereed27.pdf).

Baldacchino, G., 2010. The internationalization of SMEs in Malta: a

critical assessment in the context of five European island regions.

In: Dana, L.P. et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on European

Business and Entrepreneurship: Towards a Theory of Internation-

alization. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham & Northampton, pp. 431–

451.

Baldacchino, G., Bertram, G., 2009. The beak of the finch: insights

into the economic development of small economies. Round

Table:Commonwealth J. Int. Affairs 98 (401), 141–160.

Baldacchino, G., Ferreira, E.C.D., 2013. Competing notions of

diversity in archipelago tourism: transport logistics, official rhetoric

and inter-island rivalry in the Azores. Isl. Stud. J. 8 (1), 84–104

(Retrieved from: http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/

files/ISJ-8-1-2013-GB+EFerreira.pdf).

Biagini, E., Hoyle, B., 1999. Insularity and development on an oceanic

planet. In: Biagini, E., Hoyle, B. (Eds.), Insularity and Develop-

ment: International Perspectives on Islands. Pinter, London & New

York, pp. 1–16.

Bo _zetka, B., 2013. Wolin Island, tourism and conceptions of identity.

J. Mar. Isl. Cultures 2 (1), 1–12 (Retrieved from: http://

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212682113000127).

Canavan, B., 2011. Displacement of youth from the Isle of Man: the

role of house price inflation. Isl. Stud. J. 6 (2), 203–226 (Retrieved

from: http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-6-

2-2011-Canavan_0.pdf).

Christensen, A.E., Mertz, O., 2010. Researching Pacific island liveli-

hoods: mobility, natural resource management and nissology. Asia

Pacific Viewpoint 51 (3), 278–287.

Davila, A., 2003. Crafting culture: selling and contesting authenticity

in Puerto Rico’s informal economy. In: Lewis, J., Miller, T. (Eds.),

Critical Cultural Policy Studies: A Reader. Blackwell, Oxford,

Victoria, & Berlin, pp. 303–310.


http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed%20articles/refereed27.pdf


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-6821(14)00003-1/h0170









http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-1-2013-GB+EFerreira.pdf

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-1-2013-GB+EFerreira.pdf





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212682113000127

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212682113000127

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-6-2-2011-Canavan_0.pdf

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-6-2-2011-Canavan_0.pdf










Dugan, E., 2008. The Isles of Scilly, where Britain’s poorest people

live. The Independent. Retrieved from: <http://www.indepen-

dent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-isles-of-scilly-where-britains-

poorest-people-live-782992.html>.

Eriksen, T.H., 1993. In which sense do cultural islands exist? Soc.

Anthropol. 1 (1b), 133–147.

Falleth, E., Hofstad, H., 2008. Rural response to urban-biased land

use policy: new bottom-up planning strategies in Norway. Eur. J.

Spatial Dev. 30, 1–17 (Retrieved from: http://www.nordregio.se/

Global/EJSD/Refereed%20articles/refereed30.pdf).

Farrell, N., 2008. An island parish: A summer in Scilly. Headline,

London.

Gray, D., Shaw, J., Farrington, J., 2006. Community transport, social

capital and social exclusion in rural areas. Area 38, 89–98.

Grydehøj, A., 2008. Nothing but a shepherd and his dog: social and

economic effects of depopulation in Fetlar, Shetland. Shima 2 (2),

56–72 (Retrieved from: http://shimajournal.org/issues/v2n2/

f.%20Grydehoj%20Shima%20v2n2%2056-72.pdf).

Grydehøj, A., 2012. Making the most of smallness: economic policy in

microstates and sub-national island jurisdictions. Space Polity 15,

183–196.

Grydehøj, A., 2013. Challenges to local government innovation: legal

and institutional impediments to the exercise of innovative

economic development policy by subnational jurisdictions. Eur. J.

Spatial Dev. 50, 1–21 (Retrieved from: http://www.nordregio.se/

Global/EJSD/Refereed%20articles/refereed50.pdf).

Grydehøj, A., Hayward, P., 2011. Autonomy initiatives and quintes-

sential Englishness on the Isle of Wight. Isl. Stud. J. 6, 179–202

(Retrieved from: http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/

files/ISJ-6-2-2011-Grydehoj+Hayward.pdf).

Hansen, T., 2013. Bridging regional innovation: Cross-border collab-

oration in the Øresund Region. Geogr. Tidsskrift – Danish J.

Geogr. 113 (1), 25–38.

Hay, P., 2013. What the sea portends: a reconsideration of contested

island tropes. Isl. Stud. J. 8, 209–232 (Retrieved from: http://

www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-2-2013-Hay.

pdf).


Isle of Wight Council, 2005. Tourism Development Ppan. Retrieved

from: <http://www.visitisleofwight.co.uk/xsdbimgs/8decfinalsmallsizetdp.

pdf>.

Johnson, H., 2012. Genuine Jersey: branding and authenticity in a

small island culture. Isl. Stud. J. 7, 235–258 (Retrieved from:

<http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-7-2-

2012-Johnson.pdf>).

Leimgruber, W., 2013. Islands as marginal regions, marginal regions as

islands? In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Island

Development, Penghu, Taiwan, 1–5 October 2013, P3-1-P3-14.

Lo Bao, P., Hutchinson, I., 2002. BEAline to the Islands. Kea,

Renfrewshire.

Pons, A., Rullan, O., 2013. Artificialization and islandness in coastal

areas of Western Mediterranean Europe: with special attention to

the Spanish tourist coast. In: Proceedings of the International

Conference on Island Development, Penghu, Taiwan, 1–5 October

2013, P7-1-P7-12.

Pugh, J., 2013. Island movements: thinking with the archipelago. Isl.

Stud. J. 8, 9–24 (Retrieved from: http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/

islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-1-2013-Pugh_0.pdf).

Shetland Islands Council, 2012. Shetland in statistics: 2012. Economic

Development Unit, Lerwick.

Spilanis, I., Kizos, T., Petsioti, P., 2012. Accessibility of peripheral

regions: evidence from Aegean islands (Greece). Isl. Stud. J. 7, 199–

214 (Retrieved from: http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstud-

ies.ca/files/ISJ-7-2-2012-Spilanis-et-al.pdf).

Stratford, E., 2013. The idea of the archipelago: contemplating island

relations. Isl. Stud. J. 8, 3–8 (Retrieved from: http://www.island-

studies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-1-2013-Stratford.pdf).

Suwa, J., 2012. Shima and aquapelagic assemblages. Shima 6 (1), 12–

16 (Retrieved from: http://www.shimajournal.org/issues/v6n1/

d.%20Suwa%20Shima%20v6n1%2012-16.pdf).

Whitfield, H.J., 1852. Scilly and its Legends. Simpson, Marshall and

Co, London.

Zampoukos, K., Ioannides, D., 2011. The tourism labour conundrum:

agenda for new research in the geography of hospitality workers.

Hospitality Soc. 1 (1), 25–45.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-isles-of-scilly-where-britains-poorest-people-live-782992.html











http://shimajournal.org/issues/v2n2/f.%20Grydehoj%20Shima%20v2n2%2056-72.pdf

http://shimajournal.org/issues/v2n2/f.%20Grydehoj%20Shima%20v2n2%2056-72.pdf






http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-6-2-2011-Grydehoj+Hayward.pdf

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-6-2-2011-Grydehoj+Hayward.pdf




http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-2-2013-Hay.pdf



http://www.visitisleofwight.co.uk/xsdbimgs/8decfinalsmallsizetdp.pdf

http://www.visitisleofwight.co.uk/xsdbimgs/8decfinalsmallsizetdp.pdf

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-7-2-2012-Johnson.pdf

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-7-2-2012-Johnson.pdf



http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-1-2013-Pugh_0.pdf

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-1-2013-Pugh_0.pdf



http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-7-2-2012-Spilanis-et-al.pdf

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-7-2-2012-Spilanis-et-al.pdf

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-1-2013-Stratford.pdf

http://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/islandstudies.ca/files/ISJ-8-1-2013-Stratford.pdf

http://www.shimajournal.org/issues/v6n1/d.%20Suwa%20Shima%20v6n1%2012-16.pdf

http://www.shimajournal.org/issues/v6n1/d.%20Suwa%20Shima%20v6n1%2012-16.pdf







Social and Economic Effects of Spatial Distribution in Island Communities: Comparing the Isles of...

Documents

Transcript of Social and Economic Effects of Spatial Distribution in Island Communities: Comparing the Isles of...